ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily


Chinese Immig. Daily




The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Immigration Law Blogs on ILW.COM

How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase

Rate this Entry

Update: October 31, 12:50 pm:

The Hill reports that at an October 30 rally in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Donald Trump made the following statement about Hillary Clinton's immigration policies:

"[Hillary Clinton] wants to let people just pour in...You could have 650 million people pour in...You triple the size of our country in one week."

He didn't say what the source of this information was. Perhaps in one of Hillary Clinton's emails which even the FBI has overlooked and which is known only to Donald Trump?

See:

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-...grants-into-us

A Happy Halloween to all Immigration Daily Readers!

My original post appears below.

The following comments have been revised as of October 31 at 6:00 am:

In the light of media speculation over an October 28 FBI letter concerning purported newly discovered emails which, according to the letter, might or might not be related to the FBI's previous investigation of alleged but unproven "national security" lapses involving Hillary Clinton, it is instructive to look at the immigration proposals of the two presidential candidates to see what effect they might have on America's national security.

What does "national security" mean? It can mean many things, but one thing is axiomatic: America's national security begins with supporting and upholding our Constitution, as was emphasized by 50 Republican former national security officials who publicly expressed doubts about Donald Trump's adherence to or belief in that document in a recent statement. See New York Times, August 8:

50 G.O.P. Officials warn Trump Would Put Nation's Security 'at Risk'


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/us...rump.html?_r=0

I will begin by looking at the alleged national security implications of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals, especially her support of legalization for certain unauthorized immigrants.

Hillary Clinton's legalization proposals have come under criticism as allegedly favoring "amnesty" and "open borders", and inviting or enabling criminals, drug dealers and terrorists to come into into the United States.

Typical of this rhetoric is the inflammatory language about the alleged dangers of Hillary Clinton's immigration proposals contained in the statement of the unabashedly pro-Trump Border Patrol Union. See:

http://bpunion.org/index.php/newsroo...ation-policies

Trump himself has also accused Hillary Clinton of being a "co-founder and MVP of ISIS", and (at the October 19 presidential debate) of bringing untold numbers of Syrian refugees into the US who are "definitely ISIS-aligned".

In his August 31 Phoenix, Arizona speech on immigration, Trump was also quoted by the Los Angeles Times as saying about Clinton that:

"She doesn't know what she's doing except open borders and let everybody come in and destroy our country."

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html

Allegations such as those quoted above do not need or deserve any further comment.

Regarding the possible effect of Trump's immigration proposals on America's national security, Trump claims that by engaging in mass deportation of mainly Latino and other nonwhite immigrants on a scale previously unheard of in US history, by building a Wall with Mexico and by banning most, if not all, Muslim immigrants on the basis of either religion (his original proposal), or national origin (his more recent version), he would protect America's national security against a lot of "bad hombres".

For those who do not know Spanish, I will translate Trump's above words with the Latin term gens invisum, which Virgil uses in Book I of the Aeneid to mean a despised race or nationality.

But even assuming that banning members of an entire nationality, race or religion (as was done, for example, under the Chinese exclusion laws, and by America's refusal to accept more than a small number of Jewish immigrants who were trying to flee Hitler in the 1930's - the parallel with today's attitudes toward Syrian refugees which I have discussed in previous comments), might keep out some bad people, it is also important to consider the national security issues raised by adopting immigration policies that would tend to undermine the values, or even in some cases, the specific provisions, of the US Constitution mentioned above.

These are discussed in depth in a July 13 statement by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero as reported in the Washington Post, see:

ACLU Director: We will defend the constitution against a President Trump

See also the companion ACLU report:

THE TRUMP MEMOS

https://action.aclu.org/sites/defaul...trumpmemos.pdf

Director Romero's statement about the potential danger that Trump's immigration-related proposals could pose to the Constitution, which is the undisputed foundation of America's national security, begins as follows:

"Donald Trump's proposed policies, if caried out, would trigger a constitutional crisis. By our reckoning, a Trump administration would violate the First, Fourth, Fifth and Eighth amendments if it tried to implement his most controversial plans."

Romero then turns specifically to immigration:

"On immigration policy, there is simply no way a Trump administration could deport more than 11 million within two years of taking office. To achieve such a feat, Trump's deportation machine would have to arrest 15,000 people a day on immigration charges, seven days a week, 365 days a year."

Romero then discusses the effect of such actions on constitutional rights:

"The only way to accomplish this would be to shred the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. To carry out such an order, immigration agents would have to engage in suspicionless interrogations and arrests, unjustified traffic stops, warrentless searches of workplaces and homes, and door-to-door raids in immigrant neighborhoods. There can be little doubt that agents would relay on racial profiling and target people of Latino and Hispanic descent disproportionately, violating their right to equal protection of the law regardless of their race or national origin."

He continues:

"After rounding up undocumented immigrants...that would inevitably include U.S. citizens by mistake - the Trump administration would run face-first into the due process protections afforded every person inside the United States under the Fifth Amendment. It is inconceivable that 11 million undocumented immigrants could go before a judge in any reasonable amount of time...

And if Trump keeps them locked up, as he has proposed, he'll deprive these people of their liberty - possibly for years, without due process of law. The Southwest border under Trump's proposals would become a police state."

At this point, with all due respect to Mr. Romero and the ACLU, I would offer one point of disagreement with his last quoted sentence. There are unauthorized immigrants who have settled in every part of the United States.

It is not only the Southwest border area that would become a police state in a Trump administration.

(I am sorry - I am unable to find a working link for the above Washington Post story - please look it up on Google.)

To be continued in Part 2 of this series.
_________________________________
Roger Algase is a New York immigration lawyer and a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. For more than 35 years, he has been helping mainly skilled and professional immigrants obtain work permits and green cards, based solely on their qualifications and without regard to their ethnic background or religious affiliation, in accordance with the race-neutral immigration system which America has had in place for the past half century, since 1965, and which may now be in danger as well.

Roger believes that any attack on the constitutional rights of immigrants puts the freedom and national security of all Americans, including protection against authoritarian governmental power, at risk.

His email address is algaselex@gmail.com

Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to Facebook Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to Twitter Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to Google Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to StumbleUpon Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to Reddit Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to Digg Submit "How Would Clinton's and Trump's Immigration Proposals Affect U.S. National Security? Roger Algase" to del.icio.us

Updated 10-31-2016 at 01:27 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags

Comments

  1. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    The only one attacking constitutional rights is you. You keep distorting what Trump says and then demonizing him for saying terrible things, things that came from your imagination, not from anything he actually said.

    What are you going to do if Trump loses and drops out of politics? Will you go back to demonizing republican congressmen who want immigration enforcement? For you sake, I hope he wins. I think you will suffer terribly if you have to go back to ridiculing congressmen who are careful about what they said after your **** of tirades over the stupid things Trump says.

    Nolan Rappaport
  2. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    If Nolan Rappaport is offended or feels uncomfortable when I quote from Donald Trump's own undisputed words, usually with the exact references or links, as above, then there is a very simple action that Nolan can take to cut off these statements right at the source.

    He can contact Donald Trump (maybe by tweet - that should do the trick), and request Trump to stop making these statements.

    They are not my statements or interpretations of things that Trump has said; they are Trump's own exact words, as reported in media that are generally considered reliable, such as The Hill, above, which no one can accurately say is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    (When the latest politically motivated Benghazi "scandal" broke on October 28 with a cryptic FBI announcment that could mean anything and nothing, The Hill ran almost a dozen stories about it in the same issue, just in case anyone missed it.)

    That is not a biased, pro-Hillary publication.

    Ooops! Did I say Benghazi? Sorry, I meant Vince Foster!

    OMG!, I didn't mean Benghazi or Vince Foster either - I meant the emails!!!

    Sorry, my apologies again - it is really hard to tell them all apart - and did I forget to mention Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?

    So hard to keep track of all of this about Hillary since I am trying to focus on whether the 650 million immmigrants that Trump says Hillary plans to bring into the country in one week are due to arrive this week or next week.

    Perhaps Donald Trump could also share with us the exact dates that Hillary founded ISIS and received its MVP award - there is so much to learn about Hillary that only Donald seems to know and no one else is able to confirm.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 10-31-2016 at 09:47 PM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
  3. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    Quote Originally Posted by ImmigrationLawBlogs
    If Nolan Rappaport is offended or feels uncomfortable when I quote from Donald Trump's own undisputed words, usually with the exact references or links, as above, then there is a very simple action that Nolan can take to cut off these statements right at the source.

    He can contact Donald Trump (maybe by tweet - that should do the trick), and request Trump to stop making these statements.

    They are not my statements or interpretations of things that Trump has said; they are Trump's own exact words, as reported in media that are generally considered reliable, such as The Hill, above, which no one can accurately say is biased in favor of Hillary Clinton.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    You can't possibly be that unaware of what you are doing.

    Nolan Rappaport
  4. ImmigrationLawBlogs's Avatar
    I will respectfully answer Nolan, who has a well-deserved reputation as one of America's great immigration law scholars, as follows:

    Let me be clear about what I am doing: I am urging American voters not to be distracted by the latest in a long series of what can only be called trumped-up, politically motivated attacks against Hillary Clinton going back two decades on issues of minor or no consequence for the policy decisions facing America; and instead to focus on the momentous choices facing this country in what could turn out to be the most important election since Abraham Lincoln's time, if not in our entire history - an election which could decide what kind of country we will have for the next 50 to 100 years, not only as to immigration policy but also about our Constitution and our democratic institutions.

    Will America choose Donald Trump's vision of a country of Darkness, Division, Discrimination and Dictatorship, as German voters chose to do in their election of 1932, or will they choose Hillary Clinton's vision of America a country of Decency, Development, Diversity and Democracy?

    That is the choice that the voters of America will be making on November 8, one week from today.

    I might add that while even the ostensibly liberal media have, either through cowardice or laziness, fallen in with the popular image of Hillary Clinton as a candidate who is basically disliked and untrustworthy and who deserves to be elected on the basis of faute de mieux, the lesser of two evils; the reality is she has actually shown superb character qualities during the course of this campaign - sticking to principle, and a firm and accurate grasp of the issues, instead of making up one's own reality as Donald Trump does from moment to moment, as in the examples from his own statements I have cited above.

    Most of all, Hillary Clinton has been unflappable in the face of the most vicious, despicable attacks that any presidential candidate has come under, at least in my lifetime - and I have been following presidential campaigns fairly closely ever since I was taken as child to a rally for a president whose name also began with the letters "Trum" in 1948.

    Even Trump paid tribute to Hillary Clinton at a recent presidential debate as a "fighter" - one of the few genuine, sincere and accurate statements he has made about an opponent whom he has also threatened to lock up and deport.

    My respect for Hillary Clinton has grown immensely during this campaign. If she is elected - which is by no means a sure thing given her current press coverage - she could turn out to be one of the greatest presidents in our history.

    At the very least, she will preserve our democracy, which is now under attack as it has never been before in a modern presidential campaign.

    Roger Algase
    Attorney at Law
    Updated 11-01-2016 at 06:14 AM by ImmigrationLawBlogs
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: